David Ferrer vs Micheal Chang

Loose Cannon · May 17, 2012

Who will have had the better career?

More importantly.....who would win in the Prime of their Career, head to head.....lets say in the French........if they could magically play....

Limpinhitter · May 17, 2012

1. Chang
2. Chang

Timbo's hopeless slice · May 17, 2012

1. Chang
2. Ferrer.

Chang didn't have any actual shots, either, and despite all the hype wasn't as fit as Ferrer.

(ducks for cover)

Loose Cannon · May 17, 2012

Im pretty sure Mike ends up with the better career.....

Just wondering if these two locked horns.....

Is there a Mythical Match up thread on this site? I have a bunch more:twisted:

Timbo's hopeless slice · May 17, 2012

Loose Cannon said:
Im pretty sure Mike ends up with the better career.....

Just wondering if these two locked horns.....

Is there a Mythical Match up thread on this site? I have a bunch more:twisted:

there's a lot of mythical match up threads, but a lot of them are pretty silly.. (eg would a 5.0 beat John McEnroe?, Fabrice Santoro vs Rod Laver etc)

And no, I think Chang was gone from the tour before Ferrer appeared.

Loose Cannon · May 17, 2012

Timbo's hopeless slice said:
there's a lot of mythical match up threads, but a lot of them are pretty silly.. (eg would a 5.0 beat John McEnroe?, Fabrice Santoro vs Rod Laver etc)

And no, I think Chang was gone from the tour before Ferrer appeared.

I would almost Pay Pal you to pull up the 5.0 vs Johhny Mac thread.....I dont know if I could take the chest pains

I know that Tim.........thats why I was saying 'in the peak of their careers!

Timbo's hopeless slice · May 17, 2012

careful what you wish for..

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=414638&highlight=could+beat+mcenroe

Limpinhitter · May 18, 2012

Timbo's hopeless slice said:
1. Chang
2. Ferrer.

Chang didn't have any actual shots, either, and despite all the hype wasn't as fit as Ferrer.

(ducks for cover)

FYI, in his prime, Chang was considered to have one of the best forehands on tour. Further, IMO, Chang's shotmaking was better than Ferrer's all around. He was also stronger and faster. Their games and approaches to tennis are very similar, but Chang had a weapon, and he was faster. The only way Ferrer gets a win off of Chang is on clay AND Chang is having an sub-par day.

Mustard · May 18, 2012

Chang won the 1989 French Open and was runner-up of the 1995 French Open, 1996 Australian Open and 1996 US Open. Chang also won 3 Indian Wells, 1 Miami, 1 Canada and 2 Cincinnatis, and has been runner-up of both the World Championships (now WTF) and the Grand Slam Cup (the ITF's version of the WTF in the 1990s). Chang also had a career high world ranking of number 2, and was one match away from the number 1 ranking at the time of the 1996 US Open final against Sampras.

This all easily beats Ferrer's achievements.

BobFL · May 18, 2012

Mustard said:
Chang won the 1989 French Open and was runner-up of the 1995 French Open, 1996 Australian Open and 1996 US Open. Chang also won 3 Indian Wells, 1 Miami, 1 Canada and 2 Cincinnatis, and has been runner-up of both the World Championships (now WTF) and the Grand Slam Cup (the ITF's version of the WTF in the 1990s). Chang also had a career high world ranking of number 2, and was one match away from the number 1 ranking at the time of the 1996 US Open final against Sampras.

This all easily beats Ferrer's achievements.

Ferrer is playing in the strongest era ever. That would be against:

1. the greatest of all time - Federer
2. the greatest CC-er of all time - Vamos!
3. Nole

Z-Man · May 18, 2012

BobFL said:
Ferrer is playing in the strongest era ever. That would be against:

1. the greatest of all time - Federer
2. the greatest CC-er of all time - Vamos!
3. Nole

Chang beat Sampras 8 times. Ferrer has never beaten Federer.

I'm a huge Ferrer fan, but people forget how good Chang was. Their games are similar, but Chang achieved a lot more, and he was a bigger threat to the top players.

HurricaneDominic · May 18, 2012

1. Chang
2. Chang

I understand the whole "Ferrer is playing in the strongest era" argument, to some extent, yet he's not been to the Final of a Grand Slam, or even won a Masters title. Also Chang won 34 titles, where as Ferrer's only won 14, and at the age of 30.. are there really that many more to come, especially on non-clay courts?

Timbo's hopeless slice · May 18, 2012

Limpinhitter said:
FYI, in his prime, Chang was considered to have one of the best forehands on tour. Further, IMO, Chang's shotmaking was better than Ferrer's all around. He was also stronger and faster. Their games and approaches to tennis are very similar, but Chang had a weapon, and he was faster. The only way Ferrer gets a win off of Chang is on clay AND Chang is having an sub-par day.

Ferrer is considred to be one of the best returners of all time, but that isn't the point, either..

One of the best FH on the tour in the early nineties doesn't necessarily make it any better than Ferrer's, and I don't think Daveeeed is any slower than Chang while being IMHO fitter.

I think Ferrer's serve is superior and he has more options, being able to come to the net with success.

No disrespect to Chang, but I think he, of all the major winners of his era, would struggle the most against the current crop..

fed_rulz · May 18, 2012

Mustard said:
Chang won the 1989 French Open and was runner-up of the 1995 French Open, 1996 Australian Open and 1996 US Open. Chang also won 3 Indian Wells, 1 Miami, 1 Canada and 2 Cincinnatis, and has been runner-up of both the World Championships (now WTF) and the Grand Slam Cup (the ITF's version of the WTF in the 1990s). Chang also had a career high world ranking of number 2, and was one match away from the number 1 ranking at the time of the 1996 US Open final against Sampras.

This all easily beats Ferrer's achievements.

weak era, perhaps?? j/k

yet you'd never concede that Federer's achievements on clay easily surpass Muster's..... c'mon dude.

fed_rulz · May 18, 2012

Z-Man said:
Chang beat Sampras 8 times. Ferrer has never beaten Federer.

I'm a huge Ferrer fan, but people forget how good Chang was. Their games are similar, but Chang achieved a lot more, and he was a bigger threat to the top players.

and this is supposed to prove what?? that chang could beat Federer? or Ferrer could never beat Sampras?? sorry, not seeing the relevance here!

all you could infer is that Chang was closer to the top guys of his time than Ferrer was. But that is no indication of how their h2h's would pan out, unless you make the assumption that the top guys of chang's time were pretty much the same as the top guys of Ferrer's prime.

NadalAgassi · May 18, 2012

Pretty much a joke to even ask the question. Chang has it over Ferrer in everyway. I will say they probably would have had some close clay matches, but on any type of hard court Ferrer would be crushed by a better version of himself.

Mustard · May 18, 2012

fed_rulz said:
weak era, perhaps?? j/k

yet you'd never concede that Federer's achievements on clay easily surpass Muster's..... c'mon dude.

Muster won 40 clay-court titles, which include 1 French Open, 3 Monte Carlos and 3 Romes, and an amazing 111-5 win-loss record on clay over 2 calendar years (1995-1996). How Federer "easily surpasses" Muster on clay, as you put it, is a mystery.

slice bh compliment · May 18, 2012

Mustard said:
Chang won the 1989 French Open and was runner-up of the 1995 French Open, 1996 Australian Open and 1996 US Open. ....

Truth.

NadalAgassi said:
Pretty much a joke to even ask the question. Chang has it over Ferrer in everyday....

Truth.

But if they played each other, I like Ferru's chances. Naturally, I realize that's a fun time warp, inter-era matchup that'll never happen.

Both will always be remembered for their short stature, their tremendous grit, remarkable speed, tenacity, fitness and mental toughness amid a TOUGH era.

EDIT:
Noting the OP....on a completely meaningless and pedantic note, why do so many people inadvertently spell Michael as Micheal? Israel as Isreal? Rafael as Rafeal? No, it's pretty much just Michael that gets messed with. Is this just an American thing? Do people do this in other countries, too?

TMF · May 18, 2012

Obviously people are going to put Chang > Ferrer because he's more accomplishment. Better career, yes, but better player? I don't think so. Ferrer can't help it if he's constantly have to face Fed or Nadal everywhere he play. I would love to see Chang trying to get past the top 10 players in this era.

TMF · May 18, 2012

Z-Man said:
Chang beat Sampras 8 times. Ferrer has never beaten Federer.

I'm a huge Ferrer fan, but people forget how good Chang was. Their games are similar, but Chang achieved a lot more, and he was a bigger threat to the top players.

Yeah, but that was when they were kids. By the the time they reached 20, Sampras owned him.

I don't see Fed have any problem with Chang and he would owned him like any undersize players(eg Davydenko).

NadalAgassi · May 18, 2012

TMF said:
Obviously people are going to put Chang > Ferrer because he's more accomplishment. Better career, yes, but better player? I don't think so. Ferrer can't help it if he's constantly have to face Fed or Nadal everywhere he play. I would love to see Chang trying to get past the top 10 players in this era.

LOL what a joke as usual by The Master of Fail´. Ferrer has only lost to Nadal once in a slam ever. Heck he has a winning record vs Nadal in slams. Nadal cant be blamed for Ferrers constant failures in slams. He hasnt played Federer many times in slams either. Usually he gets nowhere near far enough to play either. One would think you were talking about Andy Murray. Chang on the other hand almost always got far enough to lose to only the best. He lost to the eventual winner of the U.S Open something like 7 years in a row.

Davydenko is a TMF Champion, many time slam semi or quarterfinalist, multiple Masters Champion, World number 3 at one point, and has multiple wins over everyone including Federer. Even he is head and shoulders better than Ferrer, so if Davydenko is your parallel to Chang (as it is Davydenko is not even at Changs level) it is a poor one to help Ferrers case.

TMF · May 18, 2012

Mustard said:
Muster won 40 clay-court titles, which include 1 French Open, 3 Monte Carlos and 3 Romes, and an amazing 111-5 win-loss record on clay over 2 calendar years (1995-1996). How Federer "easily surpasses" Muster on clay, as you put it, is a mystery.

Fed may not have Muster's numbers, but his run at RG plus playing along side with a clay goat Nadal help his case. These experts have Fed above Muster.

http://www2.lequipe.fr/redirect-v6/...23_205342_le-jury-de-l-equipe-vote-nadal.html

Notice Bruguera who won 2 RGs but is listed below Fed and Muster. That's because he lacks on other stats.

Z-Man · May 18, 2012

fed_rulz said:
and this is supposed to prove what?? that chang could beat Federer? or Ferrer could never beat Sampras?? sorry, not seeing the relevance here!

all you could infer is that Chang was closer to the top guys of his time than Ferrer was. But that is no indication of how their h2h's would pan out, unless you make the assumption that the top guys of chang's time were pretty much the same as the top guys of Ferrer's prime.

My comment is only relevant to the comment I quoted and replied to. Don't take my words out of context, start drawing your own conclusions, and then assign your straw man opinions to me.

TMF · May 18, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
LOL what a joke as usual by The Master of Fail´. Ferrer has only lost to Nadal once in a slam ever. Heck he has a winning record vs Nadal in slams. Nadal cant be blamed for Ferrers constant failures in slams. He hasnt played Federer many times in slams either. Usually he gets nowhere near far enough to play either. One would think you were talking about Andy Murray. Chang on the other hand almost always got far enough to lose to only the best. He lost to the eventual winner of the U.S Open something like 7 years in a row.

Davydenko is a TMF Champion, many time slam semi or quarterfinalist, multiple Masters Champion, World number 3 at one point, and has multiple wins over everyone including Federer. Even he is head and shoulders better than Ferrer, so if Davydenko is your parallel to Chang (as it is Davydenko is not even at Changs level) it is a poor one to help Ferrers case.

Ferrer has NO CHANCE against Nadal(and Fed on clay). No chance !
And clay is his best surface.

If Nadal isn't good on indoor, then Fed is there to stop him, like he did in 2007 Master Cup final.

He beat Nadal at the USO in 2007. Only to get killed by Nole who was the runner-up that year. Even if a miracle that he beat Nole, there's no way he was going to beat Fed in the final.

2008 AO he got killed again by Nole again. And Fed was waiting in the semi. had he miraculously beat Nole.

There's simply no chance for Ferrer and everyone else when all 4 slams are guarded tightly by the top players.

Chang would face the same dilemma, if not worse.

Mustard · May 18, 2012

At the 1997 US Open, when the strong tournament favourite, Sampras, lost to Korda in the Round of 16, Chang became the new tournament favourite. Unfortunately for Chang, he blew it in the semi finals against Rafter.

Although Chang avenged this loss to Rafter soon after in the Davis Cup semi finals, Chang never seemed the same player again after that.

Z-Man · May 18, 2012

TMF said:
Yeah, but that was when they were kids. By the the time they reached 20, Sampras owned him.

I don't see Fed have any problem with Chang and he would owned him like any undersize players(eg Davydenko).

I'm not talking about Fed vs Chang. I'm not even talking about Chang getting on the court with Ferrer. You can't directly compare players from different eras--you can only examine how they did against the available competition.

My point is that Chang had several wins over the top players of his era. He beat Sampras and Agassi many times, on many different surfaces (even late in their careers). That ability to beat the top players made Chang a threat at majors, and it put him in the top 5 for a long time.

Ferrer is a solid top 10 player, but his position relative to the very top of his generation is one notch below Chang's position relative to the top of his. Ferrer lacks the ability to get that big win over a top player that would put him in a slam final. Part of that is because Nadal and Federer are just so consistently good, but I don't think Ferrer has that weapon or extra gear to take him to the next level.

NadalAgassi · May 18, 2012

As already mentioned Ferrer doesnt even lose to the best players in majors very often, he usually doesnt reach them. Ferrer's losses in slams since he first became a top 20ish caliber player in spring 2005 (a generous limitation considering he was already 23 by then):

2005 French- lost quarters to Nadal, lost 7-5, 6-2, 6-0
2005 Wimbledon- lost 1st round to Garcia-Lopez
2005 U.S Open- lost 3rd round to Hrbaty
2006 Australian- lost round of 16 straight sets to Santoro
2006 French- lost 3rd round to Ramirez Hidalgo
2006 Wimbledon- lost 4th round to Hewitt
2006 U.S Open- lost 3rd round to Youzhny
2007 Australian- lost 4th round to Fish
2007 French- lost 3rd round to Verdasco
2007 Wimbledon- lost 2nd round to Henri Mathieu
2007 U.S Open- lost semis to Djokovic
2008 Australian- lost quarters to Djokovic
2008 French- lost quarters to Monfils
2008 Wimbledon- lost 3rd round to Ancic
2008 U.S Open- lost 3rd round to Nishikori
2009 Australian- lost 3rd round to Cilic
2009 French- lost 3rd round to Soderling
2009 Wimbledon- lost 3rd round to Stepanek
2009 U.S Open- lost 2nd round to Acasuso
2010 Australian Open- lost 2nd round to Baghdatis
2010 French- lost 3rd round to Melzer
2010 Wimbledon- lost 4th round to Soderling
2010 U.S Open- lost 4th round to Verdasco
2011 Australian- lost semis to Murray
2011 French- lost 4th round to Monfils
2011 Wimbledon- lost 4th round to Tsonga
2011 U.S Open- lost 4th round to Roddick
2012 Australian- lost quarters to Djokovic

Yeah Ferrer would be raking in the slams without Federer and Nadal, LOL! One could feel comfortable betting thousands of dollars that in some hypothetical universe Federer and Nadal never played professional tennis, Ferrer would still be slamless. Maybe if you take them away and Djokovic and Murray, he might make 1 slam final and 4 slam semis instead of 2, if he is lucky. This despite that even Federer fanboys (the ones who love to build up the current era the most for obvious reasons) concede there is no depth outside the top 4 for the longest time now.

By contrast Chang would probably have 5 or 6 slams without Sampras or Agassi. Chang almost always lost to only great players or great surface specialists from 1990-1997 except Wimbledon often.

loosegroove · May 18, 2012

I never quite understood why people think Michael Chang would do so poorly in the current era. I feel really the game has changed to more of his style: slower courts and more about consistent grinding, topspin, and movement. Plus I feel like his game would have improved with the extra power of a tweener type stick, but with the use of modern poly. He was capable of hitting more offensive shots that people give him credit for, but I think that it's just because his defense was so good, and he wasn't a nasty serve and volley player like so many of the top pros at the time.

NadalAgassi · May 19, 2012

Whether Chang would win a slam in this era is irrelevant to whether or not he is better than Ferrer. All we know is Chang would do much better than Ferrer in any era, slam win or not. Ferrer cant even win a Masters, make a slam final, or even regularly reach the best players in slams. It isnt like Ferrer is the best player of this era to not win a slam. Murray, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Soderling, Coria, post 2003 Roddick, post 2002 Hewitt, Berdych, Ljubicic, Haas, are all better players than him, some of those way better. In fact nobody suggests Ferrer should win a slam or would in any era. Chang people atleast said it was a shame never got a 2nd slam.

A better thread would be prime Hewit vs prime Chang.

abmk · May 19, 2012

chang > ferrer ..... simply a better big match/ big point player ....End of story .....

abmk · May 19, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
A better thread would be prime Hewit vs prime Chang.

that's a no brainer too IMO...

prime Hewitt ...

NadalAgassi · May 19, 2012

TMF said:
Ferrer has NO CHANCE against Nadal(and Fed on clay). No chance !
And clay is his best surface.

He hasnt even reached Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic at a French Open since 2005 now. Thus your point is meaningless.

He beat Nadal at the USO in 2007. Only to get killed by Nole who was the runner-up that year. Even if a miracle that he beat Nole, there's no way he was going to beat Fed in the final.

Yet if all these guys were not in the event, he still would have been beaten by Roddick or Davydenko.

2008 AO he got killed again by Nole again. And Fed was waiting in the semi. had he miraculously beat Nole.

So Ferrer even beating a teenaged Djokovic in slams would be a "miracle" via your own words, yet you are trying to argue him as being on the same level or better than Chang, LOL!

NadalAgassi · May 19, 2012

abmk said:
that's a no brainer too IMO...

prime Hewitt ...

I mostly agree but they are still much closer than Ferrer and Chang. Hewitt > Chang >>>> Ferrer. Ferrer is like the B version of the Hewitt or Chang game.

abmk · May 19, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
By contrast Chang would probably have 5 or 6 slams without Sampras or Agassi. Chang almost always lost to only great players or great surface specialists from 1990-1997 except Wimbledon often.

which ones ?

USO 93 ? maybe

USO 96 ? maybe

that makes it 3 at max ...

NadalAgassi · May 19, 2012

abmk said:
which ones ?

USO 93 ? maybe

USO 96 ? maybe

that makes it 3 at max ...

U.S Open 94 probably IMO. Remember he lost to Agassi in a tough 5 setter, Agassi's toughest match of the tournament. On a hard court would have been favored vs any of the other semifinalists- Martin, Stich, or Novacek. He would have had a tough time with Muster even on hard courts if they played since Muster is a tough opponent for him, but still on those courts he probably still wins.

At the 1997 Australian if he plays Moya in the final instead of the semis he wins for sure, although Muster would have been a tough opponent for Chang there if they met.

I dont think he wins the 1990 French if he didnt lose to Agassi but he was the defending Champion.

I guess I should have added Edberg as well. He might well have won the 92 U.S Open without Edberg, and might have even had a chance in 1991.

abmk · May 19, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
U.S Open 94 probably IMO. Remember he lost to Agassi in a tough 5 setter, Agassi's toughest match of the tournament. On a hard court would have been favored vs any of the other semifinalists- Martin, Stich, or Novacek. He would have had a tough time with Muster even on hard courts if they played since Muster is a tough opponent for him, but still on those courts he probably still wins.

I'd probably favour stich over him in that tourney ........

NadalAgassi said:
At the 1997 Australian if he plays Moya in the final instead of the semis he wins for sure, although Muster would have been a tough opponent for Chang there if they met.

I don't see the logic in this ... He lost to Moya in the semis ...

NadalAgassi said:
I dont think he wins the 1990 French if he didnt lose to Agassi but he was the defending Champion.

yes, he'd still probably lose to gomez/muster

NadalAgassi said:
I guess I should have added Edberg as well. He might well have won the 92 U.S Open without Edberg, and might have even had a chance in 1991.

another player ???

he still would have to contend with courier and lendl ....

NadalAgassi · May 19, 2012

abmk said:
I'd probably favour stich over him in that tourney ........

Chang is a much better hard court player than Stich. Their records on the surface speak for itself. Stich could win, but Chang would be the favorite. It is not like Stich was any better than mediocre in the final anyway.

I don't see the logic in this ... He lost to Moya in the semis ...

The logic is quite simple. With Sampras out of the draw there is no telling when they might play. However if it is a final (if this is the hypothetical final with Sampras out) Chang likely wins. Moya was crap in the final as most newcomers in their first slam final often are.

another player ???

Why not. I already pointed out that you could remove all of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, and Ferrer is likely still slamless. Throw in Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Coria, Ferrero, and almost any slam winner of the last decade if you wish, and this is still probably true when you go through the various slams. Maybe he has a chance at the 2011 Australian Open only, but more likely he runs into one of Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga, or any of a number of big hitters on a 80% or better day and loses.

abmk · May 19, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
Chang is a much better hard court player than Stich. Their records on the surface speak for itself. Stich could win, but Chang would be the favorite. It is not like Stich was any better than mediocre in the final anyway.

stich played mediocre in the first set, but played much better afterwards - the 2nd and 3rd sets were close. Agassi was as bad a matchup for stich as you could get .....

stich was playing well in that tourney and that's why I said I'd favour him over chang ....

chang was much better than becker on clay careerwise, but becker blew him off court in 91 RG ...

NadalAgassi said:
The logic is quite simple. With Sampras out of the draw there is no telling when they might play. However if it is a final (if this is the hypothetical final with Sampras out) Chang likely wins. Moya was crap in the final as most newcomers in their first slam final often are.

a lot of assumptions to make. Muster was also having his best HC season , chang wouldn't find it easy to get past him .... Moya would probably be more confident vs chang rather than vs sampras in a hypothetical final ....

NadalAgassi said:
Why not. I already pointed out that you could remove all of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, and Ferrer is likely still slamless. Throw in Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Coria, Ferrero, and almost any slam winner of the last decade if you wish, and this is still probably true when you go through the various slams. Maybe he has a chance at the 2011 Australian Open only, but more likely he runs into one of Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga, or any of a number of big hitters on a 80% or better day and loses.

yeah, agreed , no comparision b/w them in the big matches - ferrer/chang ...

kiki · May 19, 2012

ferrer´s ( and murray´s) unability to challenge the top 3 is the final proof of this extremely weak era...

kiki · May 19, 2012

Ferrer is nº5 long ago...well, in 1971, Nastase or Kodes, all timers, were at 5, in 79 it was multislam winners Tanner or Vilas, in 1981 it was great Vitas Gerulaitis ( who beat everybdoy bar Borg), in 85 it was Becker, the W champion and future all time great...and now and forever it is Ferrer...

ROFLMAO¡¡¡¡¡¡

As much as I´d try, I would not find a weak era as this one...

abmk · May 19, 2012

kiki said:
ferrer´s ( and murray´s) unability to challenge the top 3 is the final proof of this extremely weak era...

murray has beat nadal twice in majors, so has ferrer.....

murray just pushed djoker to the limit at the recent AO .....

you are as usual clueless ....

abmk · May 19, 2012

kiki said:
Ferrer is nº5 long ago...well, in 1971, Nastase or Kodes, all timers, were at 5, in 79 it was multislam winners Tanner or Vilas, in 1981 it was great Vitas Gerulaitis ( who beat everybdoy bar Borg), in 85 it was Becker, the W champion and future all time great...and now and forever it is Ferrer...

ROFLMAO¡¡¡¡¡¡

As much as I´d try, I would not find a weak era as this one...

LMAO so gerulatis is "great", while murray is a chump ????? LOL !!!!!!

since when on earth did tanner became a multi-slam winner ? ( he only won the AO which had a weak , weak field )

delpo who is a slam winner is very much getting back to top shape , he's already in the top 10 , will probably come back to top 5/6 soon ....

even tsonga, who's the only one to have beaten all top 4 in slams, is in the top 10 ...

I can find you an era much weaker than this one ..... 67-69 , rosewall declining big time, emerson growing older ( especially mattered more as he had a physical style of play ) , newcombe not yet hit his peak, an injury prone Roche the only real challenger to Laver ....

see how easy it was ...

kiki · May 19, 2012

abmk said:
LMAO so gerulatis is "great", while murray is a chump ????? LOL !!!!!!

since when on earth did tanner became a multi-slam winner ? ( he only won the AO which had a weak , weak field )

delpo who is a slam winner is very much getting back to top shape , he's already in the top 10 , will probably come back to top 5/6 soon ....

even tsonga, who's the only one to have beaten all top 4 in slams, is in the top 10 ...

I can find you an era much weaker than this one ..... 67-69 , rosewall declining big time, emerson growing older ( especially mattered more as he had a physical style of play ) , newcombe not yet hit his peak, an injury prone Roche the only real challenger to Laver ....

see how easy it was ...

Yes, the declining Rosewall that won USO a year later and still amde the 69 FO final.Newcombe not at his peak but next year he would win his second Wimbledon.Roche was injury prone, yes, but in 68-70 played some of the greatest tennis seen.

Oh¡¡¡ not mentioning Gimeno,Santana,Stolle,Smith,Kodes,Nastase,Drysdale,Lutz,Ralslton,Taylor,Pilic and Gonzales....

abmk · May 19, 2012

kiki said:
Yes, the declining Rosewall that won USO a year later and still amde the 69 FO final.Newcombe not at his peak but next year he would win his second Wimbledon.Roche was injury prone, yes, but in 68-70 played some of the greatest tennis seen.

Oh¡¡¡ not mentioning Gimeno,Santana,Stolle,Smith,Kodes,Nastase,Drysdale,Lutz,Ralslton,Taylor,Pilic and Gonzales....

rosewall had plenty of bad losses in 67 and 69 .... don't say it was just laver ..... no wonder laver capitalized and those were his best 2 years :twisted:

stolle, santana benefited from the split fields

smith, kodes, nastase came into the picture more from 70-71 onwards, not from 67-69 ....

taylor ? pilic ? lutz ? drysdale , ralston?????? LOL !!! the likes of tsonga, soderling, berdych, ferrer etc ... are all better by some distance ......

gonzales was nearing 40 ..... nowhere close to his best .... occasionally dangerous but that's it ...

kiki · May 19, 2012

abmk said:
rosewall had plenty of bad losses in 67 and 69 .... don't say it was just laver ..... no wonder laver capitalized and those were his best 2 years :twisted:

stolle, santana benefited from the split fields

smith, kodes, nastase came into the picture more from 70-71 onwards, not from 67-69 ....

taylor ? pilic ? lutz ? drysdale , ralston?????? LOL !!! the likes of tsonga, soderling, berdych, ferrer etc ... are all better by some distance ......

gonzales was nearing 40 ..... nowhere close to his best .... occasionally dangerous but that's it ...

true GOLDEN ERA field, let´s take 1980-81.look at that and you won´t believe it:
Mac.Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Clerc,Tanner,Dibbs,Gottfried,Fibak,Solomon,Ramirez,Pecci,Noah,Kriek,Teacher,Teltscher,Sadri,Smid,Gunthardt,Taroczy,Pinner,Noah,Dent,Amritraj,Mottram,Higueras,Barazutti,Panatta,Orantes,Sadri,Scanlon,Curren,Edmondson,Mc Namara,Lewis,Gomez,Pfister,Stockton,Amaya, still competitive Nastase,S Smith,Kodes,Okker,Lutz,Fleming,Krishnan,Gullikson,Arias....

ABMK, did you ever watch that tennis? no, you didn´t since your crush Federer was born that year.You, the Joe Pike of Federites.

abmk · May 19, 2012

kiki said:
true GOLDEN ERA field, let´s take 1980-81.look at that and you won´t believe it:
Mac.Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Clerc,Tanner,Dibbs,Gottfried,Fibak,Solomon,Ramirez,Pecci,Noah,Kriek,Teacher,Teltscher,Sadri,Smid,Gunthardt,Taroczy,Pinner,Noah,Dent,Amritraj,Mottram,Higueras,Barazutti,Panatta,Orantes,Sadri,Scanlon,Curren,Edmondson,Mc Namara,Lewis,Gomez,Pfister,Stockton,Amaya, still competitive Nastase,S Smith,Kodes,Okker,Lutz,Fleming,Krishnan,Gullikson,Arias....

ABMK, did you ever watch that tennis? no, you didn´t since your crush Federer was born that year.You, the Joe Pike of Federites.

talk was about the weakest era ??? so I've proven that 67-69 was the weakest era of all time , agreed ? :lol:

now, coming to 80-81, yes, dumbo, I've watched quite a bit of tennis from that era ..

I've watched that classic b/w borg-mac in the 80 wimbledon final ..... mac coming back from the dead with 2 splendid points on the borg serve in the 4th set ...that legendary tie-break and then borg regaining his composure to win the 5th , hardly losing any points on his serve ..

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close encounter at flushing the very same year .....

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close match in the finals at wimbledon in 81...

I've watched a fascinating comeback from borg vs connors in the semis in 81 wimbledon , coming from being down 2 sets to love, bagelling him after being bagelled ..

I've watched borg outlast lendl rather easily in the 5th set in the finals of RG in 81

etc etc ...

competitive era ? hell yeah ... the most competitive/golden era ???? I don't think so ..... I'd say that was more the mid 80s to end of 80s , with lendl, becker, edberg, wilander at the top , with mac, connors, cash, gomez, young agassi, curren,mecir,young chang, leconte etc ... in the mix ....

pc1 · May 19, 2012

abmk said:
talk was about the weakest era ??? so I've proven that 67-69 was the weakest era of all time , agreed ? :lol:

now, coming to 80-81, yes, dumbo, I've watched quite a bit of tennis from that era ..

I've watched that classic b/w borg-mac in the 80 wimbledon final ..... mac coming back from the dead with 2 splendid points on the borg serve in the 4th set ...that legendary tie-break and then borg regaining his composure to win the 5th , hardly losing any points on his serve ..

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close encounter at flushing the very same year .....

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close match in the finals at wimbledon in 81...

I've watched a fascinating comeback from borg vs connors in the semis in 81 wimbledon , coming from being down 2 sets to love, bagelling him after being bagelled ..

I've watched borg outlast lendl rather easily in the 5th set in the finals of RG in 81

etc etc ...

competitive era ? hell yeah ... the most competitive/golden era ???? I don't think so ..... I'd say that was more the mid 80s to end of 80s , with lendl, becker, edberg, wilander at the top , with mac, connors, cash, gomez, young agassi, curren,mecir,young chang, leconte etc ... in the mix ....

Any era can be debated as the Golden Era depending on the person's perspective.

Someone can name Newcombe for one era, another can name Edberg, one can name Sedgman, another era can name Becker.

As far as Ferrer versus Michael Chang, I actually feel this is a reasonable comparison for once. Chang was an excellent player and I think better than a number of player who won more majors than him. Ferrer is an excellent player also. Both have great returns, excellent speed but I do feel Chang was an overall superior player. With the exception of when Sampras was on his game you always felt Chang could beat anyone. In today's game I think Chang would be a top threat on grass.

kiki · May 19, 2012

abmk said:
talk was about the weakest era ??? so I've proven that 67-69 was the weakest era of all time , agreed ? :lol:

now, coming to 80-81, yes, dumbo, I've watched quite a bit of tennis from that era ..

I've watched that classic b/w borg-mac in the 80 wimbledon final ..... mac coming back from the dead with 2 splendid points on the borg serve in the 4th set ...that legendary tie-break and then borg regaining his composure to win the 5th , hardly losing any points on his serve ..

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close encounter at flushing the very same year .....

I've watched mac edge out borg in a close match in the finals at wimbledon in 81...

I've watched a fascinating comeback from borg vs connors in the semis in 81 wimbledon , coming from being down 2 sets to love, bagelling him after being bagelled ..

I've watched borg outlast lendl rather easily in the 5th set in the finals of RG in 81

etc etc ...

competitive era ? hell yeah ... the most competitive/golden era ???? I don't think so ..... I'd say that was more the mid 80s to end of 80s , with lendl, becker, edberg, wilander at the top , with mac, connors, cash, gomez, young agassi, curren,mecir,young chang, leconte etc ... in the mix ....

You proved nothing about 67 to 69.Hey, it seems you are not that suck up to Federere´s era¡¡ I don´t know if it was your daddy who told you what you wrtotte, but it is pretty much what happened back in golden era.

abmk · May 19, 2012

kiki said:
You proved nothing about 67 to 69.Hey, it seems you are not that suck up to Federere´s era¡¡ I don´t know if it was your daddy who told you what you wrtotte, but it is pretty much what happened back in golden era.

want me to post screenshots/videos of some of the matches I have from that era ????

I was never stuck up to federer era ...... I've made plenty of posts regarding the matches in the past , including from the 70s, 80s, 90s ......, but then you've mostly seen me refuting your clueless statements about the present era .....

abmk · May 19, 2012

pc1 said:
Any era can be debated as the Golden Era depending on the person's perspective.

Someone can name Newcombe for one era, another can name Edberg, one can name Sedgman, another era can name Becker.

As far as Ferrer versus Michael Chang, I actually feel this is a reasonable comparison for once. Chang was an excellent player and I think better than a number of player who won more majors than him. Ferrer is an excellent player also. Both have great returns, excellent speed but I do feel Chang was an overall superior player. With the exception of when Sampras was on his game you always felt Chang could beat anyone. In today's game I think Chang would be a top threat on grass.

well style of play wise, they are similar - but chang was/is simply the better big match/ big point player .....

chang was never that comfortable on grass IMO .....

I disagree with your statement in bold. IMO, any top player of that era or for that matter any era , when playing well , would normally beat chang.... If any one of them was slightly off, chang stood a good chance of beating him ......

becker was even worse of a matchup for chang than even sampras ....

David Ferrer vs Micheal Chang

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Professional

HurricaneDominic

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

NadalAgassi

Guest

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

NadalAgassi

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Professional

NadalAgassi

Guest

Hall of Fame

NadalAgassi

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

NadalAgassi

Guest

NadalAgassi

Guest

Bionic Poster

NadalAgassi

Guest

Bionic Poster

NadalAgassi

Guest

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Similar threads